Mukesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39756 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2016 Thana -MOHIUDDIN NAGAR DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Mukesh Kumar Singh, S/o Krishan Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh @ Krishn Singh resident of Village- Sultanpur Madhya, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. Case No. 96 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant Abhishek Kumar Singh named five accused persons along with the petitioner and alleged that they came to his door and began to abuse. On the order of Krishna Singh, the petitioner Mukesh Kumar Singh assaulted the informant with Farsa on his head. Rajan Kumar Singh and Ravi Kumar Singh also assaulted the informant with iron rod. It is submitted that the informant got as many as four

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39756 of 2016 (2) dt.19-09-2016 2/2 injuries out of which three injuries are simple in nature, one injury is lacerated wound found on the mid of the head to be grievous in nature. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely Nirmala Devi, Rajan Kumar Singh, Krishan Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33474 of 2016.

It appears from perusal of the record that petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the informant with Farsa on the mid of his head which is lacerated and opined to be grievous in nature. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner caused grievous injury on the head of the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T